Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 7, 2011 1:30pm-2:00pm PDT

1:30 pm
information. do you want this or this? if you already want this, why are these people here debating? we are here to find a solution and i am a fan the drivers did not want. two speculum to people that did not help and she kept sweet -- screaming at me. there are 100 drivers sitting over there. 90% of us are coming.
1:31 pm
please, before we are in stride flat -- next week? >> i wanted, and make some general comments about of process because there are other -- this seems to be made up as it goes along. there is no coherent process. in the last meeting there was a discussion ultimately in the motion but contemplated a very limited pilot program, perhaps
1:32 pm
to find cabs, to c l other part- time, peak time signal operators in the taxi systems would work. they have suddenly blossomed into 125 cabs on the table. it seems that the proposal is changing almost from day to day. it was supposed to be a study and this was supposed to be based on data and based on solid recommendations by also want to say that you are never going to get good service if you ride exclusively on the option of adding cabs. we must improve the efficiency of the fleet to do that. open taxi access is a wonderful idea that should go forward with your support. centralized dispatch is a
1:33 pm
complementary idea and while i am not proposing doing that immediately, i am proposing that you fund a study. lastly, i have to say that there is a conflict of interest in this body as long as you can financially benefit from selling medallions, there will be a conflict of interest in your doings. >> thank you. let's move on to the consent calendar. >> [inaudible] >> anything on the consent calendar? is that a motion? is there a second? thank you. >> [inaudible]
1:34 pm
>> members of the board? any questions or comments? >> these are not extensive questions. my first comment is that i am very glad we work something out and i appreciate the responsiveness of staff on this issue. there have been contentious debates on this. i appreciate the work of my
1:35 pm
colleagues on this proposal. personally i believe that we should issue having any kind of sign up on these. i realize that the scaled-back block signature requirement is the result of compromise policy making. if someone was -- once a child care permit, for abided debt they can get the person for whom the permit will be used as a child care provider that the house, and that they get 10 signatures from the effect that blocked. once those signatures are obtained, the block is a child care eligible area such that the next house that once a child care permits would not require
1:36 pm
more hardware. >> [laughter] i am the child care guide. it does not mean that the excepting party has to take the initial request. it could be something we already have on file. [unintelligible] a permit for your own household [interference] [static]
1:37 pm
[laughter] >> thank you, mr. plan hold. >> we were responsive. this leads me to a practical question. i realize that there are some blocks in this city that have far more than 10 households. in my common knowledge of it, some of them have very close to or even fewer than 10 and i wonder if there is a flexibility in the system. >> the other requirement is 60%
1:38 pm
of the block. >> ok. >> just a quick clarification. i asked the same question as the director. it does not matter in terms of a block size. 50% would apply? >> the way that we set out the requirement is to relieve the residential burden of gathering to many signatures. for example, this big apartment building with 30 to 40 units, it can be difficult to get signatures, so this will have some flexibility in allowing them to be the requirement in different ways. >> 50%?
1:39 pm
>> 410 households. >> right. very quickly, my second clarification regarding age, you talked about 16 and moved it back to 12. maybe he was 12. that is the standard minimum age of the threshold for child care credit when you file your income tax. as a parent, i can tell you that i would not leave her home alone for an extended period without any child care.
1:40 pm
i am very watch appreciate. i would like to know one thing. there is a call for a look back on how this is going and the general idea, i think, is the third hit -- there is upper entertainment there. making sure the this requirement that you put in and we should be prompting the people getting these comments tonight to not get them. >> is there a second?
1:41 pm
>> i will second. >> i think that we have reached a good compromise on this one. i know that we put the staff through the ringer on this one a bit. there is a residential parking permit system, but it does not really worked brilliantly for anyone. we need to look at that system and think about how we will issue more permits in the zone. a license to hunt instead of a as we look at the wider issue. >> when we talked at the last meeting it was brought to our attention that of all of the web site groups, there was
1:42 pm
information on how to cheat. >> i have had very direct conversations with the golden gate mothers' group. they absolutely did not condone that and i was really taken aback, try to think about what it means for transit and pedestrians. and my concern was coming from a resident, as a resident that has a lot of units in the building, those parking spaces are even more valuable to those high occupancy buildings than residents that have
1:43 pm
neighborhoods where. based and the information where they're trying to address the issue of time as opposed to space. people have a hard time parking anywhere for more than two hours. when we come back by hope that we will be able to look at the permits geographically. if we focus on a place where the parking is not as constrained, that is fine. if we find them applied to residents in high occupancy buildings that have not had a chance to say anything, i think it is a cause to be revisited. thank you for your hard work. >> we have a motion and a
1:44 pm
second. >> moving of the discussion regarding pedestrian safety. >> are there speakers on this one? members of the board? let's i think that this came from myself and the director lee e.. and there is still a lot of thought from supervisors and the public that we are not doing enough and we will continue to work on it. in the movies out by the
1:45 pm
schools. and of saturday -- >> someone else put together the report. i would ask them. >> the overall, on time performance of the system. >> we are not sure and that nearly operates with science, mixed with the schools on streets that are 30 miles or less with a certain number of lanes. operating on the other type of
1:46 pm
streets, they are making a difference and we will monitor how effective this will be on safety and if there is any impact on safety or the operating out what. >> it seems important to recognize. often we hear that the service man is not aware. i mean, it is a wonderful thing in the they needed to be was jesse all of these different activities like how transit of the next? the disabled community. we are giving to the point where we can find the balance amongst all of the loaves. a great question you have raised.
1:47 pm
also, what does that mean as it relates to certain and after that i will be watching the optimum, sweet spot is there a speaker -- sweet spot. >> is there a speaker coming forward? >> the item was set for presentation, so i wanted to see what it was before i could comment. there has been no presentation. i came because this issue of the speed limit around schools is not justice and francisco matter. through the state plan there is
1:48 pm
a committee that deals with making walking and biking safer. one of the current topic policy issues is about suitable speeds. the next meeting is on the 23rd of june. there is pending legislation in the assembly that would increase fines for violating a speed limit in a school zone. by wanted to see -- what does mta say in the presentation? i still have not heard anything in terms of whether mta has tried to talk to with lobbyists about the bill that would increase the fines for violating the speed limits in a school zone. so, basically i cannot comment on what is there, but this issue is broader than the city and it is coming upper.
1:49 pm
i ask that somehow this presentation be made. >> who was it? can you give us a sketch of this presentation? >> your members have had a chance to see this and we have been familiar for some time. >> the staff memo? >> yes. >> there were two relative state items. >> this particular item was called out in the mayor's pedestrian safety elective issued in late december.
1:50 pm
in response to that, three subcommittees have begun work on these items and we are working our way around that to scoop up the necessary improvements and the cost of what improvements would take, developing from these strategies. specifically to have a measurable impact on food safety. something that can be done quickly this pretty much black and white. just follow the criteria in the
1:51 pm
legal code. we do not have any money yet, but we have been doing that for the last couple of months. looking at the nearby streets that apply, we estimate about 200 schools in the city. when you draw up a little radius around the school in san francisco, 200 of them would probably cover the city. it is a pretty grand scale. we think that a lot of the streets would meet those criteria. the vehicle code does specify that we need to bring these specific ones to you for approval because of local jurisdictions that were adopted by resolutions.
1:52 pm
so, you will be able to follow the progress of the item that we bring to you. we have a friend of the rea and where the transportation money came from. -- form -- we had a friend on the mta who knew where the transportation money came from. we think that we can get this done by spring of next year. >> thank you so much. item 13 has been removed from the calendar. item 14? >> the better market street project.
1:53 pm
>> you inquired about additional projects along lower market street, generated by the successful pilots on market, 10th, and six. and use them available if you have any questions that are willing and it went into it with a report in my hands. taking a look realm -- taking a look round, i can appreciate the complexity of what goes on on market street. i know how much is going on there. this did have some interesting
1:54 pm
information on it. the number of vehicles making that turned on to westbound an eastbound was very interesting, making you realize that that is what is getting in a way of our transit. my motivation is that those two right turns gave up 3% to 5%. my goal is that we set a goal for increasing transit fees on market street. we have talked about increasing it from 8 miles per hour to 10 miles per hour. i am excited to start working toward that. i know that some of the things we might choose to do might be considered onerous by some motorists. to not be able to play, to crest
1:55 pm
-- after crosse before you and right and they know that if i say that transit can decisions are already onerous,. i read this i come down on the side of the transit riders. also, after having seen driving camera footage from a 71 on market street, what they have to deal with in terms of getting the bus safely down market street? that is a very challenging route to drive. anything that we can do to not only speed up, but making safer for the drivers, degreasing those unavoidable collisions. so, i will be other -- very
1:56 pm
interested in what happened. >> what does happen now? >> mr. chairman, members of the board, as you know, in the staff report i think that the problem is that if it were up to us and everything was perfect in this world, we cannot do everything. the details going on with the other street clothes and a major portion of southbound traffic being detoured onto post and montgomery, to our buses turning on market, that is causing the
1:57 pm
issue. we do not want to put in something with unintended consequences like this report, making the other areas near rye degraded. a good example is forestry if it were not for the construction going on right now, the unintended consequence would be if we were to prohibit the right turn from northbound 31st on the market. first, i do not know the -- that it would gain in the space. and you do not gain any space. the people that normally make that right turn onto market, since they cannot do that anymore the first option would be to cross and turn right drug
1:58 pm
going across on montgomery. flex the first three have to do -- have to do with central subway construction? >> correct. flex options four and five. is the more inclined to do so? -- is the board inclined to do so? >> i am just trying to figure out -- >> pilot is in my authority, but i am trying to get a sense of the options from the board.
1:59 pm
>> was there a consensus around trying options four and five? director? >> i am looking eagerly before the day that we have no more [unintelligible] bond market street. i will not hold my breath on this, but i have seen so many near collisions. the sooner that we get pov's off of market street, the better it will be for everybody. those that need to use market street will be able to use it.